Learning Spinal Manipulation: Objective and Subjective Assessment of Performance

Development of a basic evaluation model for manual therapy learning in rehabilitation students based on the Delphi method

OBJECTIVE

Manual therapy is a crucial component in rehabilitation education, yet there is a lack of models for evaluating learning in this area. This study aims to develop a foundational evaluation model for manual therapy learning among rehabilitation students, based on the Delphi method, and to analyze the theoretical basis and practical significance of this model.

METHODS

An initial framework for evaluating the fundamentals of manual therapy learning was constructed through a literature review and theoretical analysis. Using the Delphi method, consultations were conducted with young experts in the field of rehabilitation from January 2024 to March 2024. Fifteen experts completed three rounds of consultation. Each round involved analysis using Dview software, refining and adjusting indicators based on expert opinions, and finally summarizing all retained indicators using Mindmaster.

RESULTS

The effective response rates for the three rounds of questionnaires were 88%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Expert familiarity scores were 0.91, 0.95, and 0.95; coefficient of judgment were 0.92, 0.93, and 0.93; authority coefficients were 0.92, 0.94, and 0.94, respectively. Based on three rounds of consultation, the model established includes 3 primary indicators, 10 secondary indicators, 17 tertiary indicators, and 9 quaternary indicators. A total of 24 statistical indicators were finalized, with 8 under the Cognitive Abilities category, 10 under the Practical Skills category, and 6 under the Emotional Competence category.

CONCLUSION

This study has developed an evaluation model for manual therapy learning among rehabilitation students, based on the Delphi method. The model includes multi-level evaluation indicators covering the key dimensions of Cognitive Abilities, Practical Skills, and Emotional Competence. These indicators provide a preliminary evaluation framework for manual therapy education and a theoretical basis for future research.

Factors Associated With Clinical Responses to Spinal Manipulation in Patients With Non-specific Thoracic Back Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study

Introduction: The management of musculoskeletal disorders is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Manual therapies, such as spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), are often recommended as an adjunct treatment and appear to have demonstrable effects on pain and short-term disability in several spinal conditions. However, no definitive mechanism that can explain these effects has been identified. Identifying relevant prognostic factors is therefore recommended for people with back pain.

Objective: The main purpose of this study was to identify short-term candidate prognostic factors for clinically significant responses in pain, disability and global perceived change (GPC) following a spinal manipulation treatment in patients with non-specific thoracic back pain.

Methods: Patients seeking care for thoracic spine pain were invited to participate in the study. Pain levels were recorded at baseline, post-intervention, and 1 week after a single session of SMT. Disability levels were collected at baseline and at 1-week follow-up. GPC was collected post-intervention and at 1-week follow-up. Biomechanical parameters of SMT, expectations for improvement in pain and disability, kinesiophobia, anxiety levels as well as perceived comfort of spinal manipulative therapy were assessed.

Analysis: Differences in baseline characteristics were compared between patients categorized as responders or non-responders based on their pain level, disability level, and GPC at each measurement time point. Binary logistic regression was calculated if the statistical significance level of group comparisons (responder vs. non-responders) was equal to, or <0.2 for candidate prognostic factors.

Results: 107 patients (62 females and 45 males) were recruited. Mean peak force averaged 450.8 N with a mean thrust duration of 134.9 ms. Post-intervention, comfort was associated with pain responder status (p < 0.05) and GPC responder status (p < 0.05), while expectation of disability improvement was associated with GPC responder status (p < 0.05). At follow-up, comfort and expectation of pain improvement were associated with responder GPC status (p < 0.05). No association was found between responder pain, disability or GPC status and biomechanical parameters of SMT at any time point.

Discussion: No specific dosage of SMT was associated with short-term clinical responses to treatment. However, expectations of improvement and patient comfort during SMT were associated with a positive response to treatment.

Isolating steps instead of learners: Use of deliberate practice and validity evidence in coronavirus disease (COVID)-era procedural assessment

Background

In surgical training, assessment tools based on strong validity evidence allow for standardized evaluation despite changing external circumstances. At a large academic institution, surgical interns undergo a multimodal curriculum for central line placement that uses a 31-item binary assessment at the start of each academic year. This study evaluated this practice within increased in-person learning restrictions. We hypothesized that external constraints would not affect resident performance nor assessment due to a robust curriculum and assessment checklist.

Methods

From 2018 to 2020, 81 residents completed central line training and assessment. In 2020, this curriculum was modified to conform to in-person restrictions and social distancing guidelines. Resident score reports were analyzed using multivariate analyses to compare performance, objective scoring parameters, and subjective assessments among “precoronavirus disease” years (2018 and 2019) and 2020.

Results

There were no significant differences in average scores or objective pass rates over 3 years. Significant differences between 2020 and precoronavirus disease years occurred in subjective pass rates and in first-time success for 4 checklist items: patient positioning, draping, sterile ultrasound probe cover placement, and needle positioning before venipuncture.

Conclusion

Modifications to procedural training within current restrictions did not adversely affect residents’ overall performance. However, our data suggest that in 2020, expert trainers may not have ensured learner acquisition of automated procedural steps. Additionally, although 2020 raters could have been influenced by logistical barriers leading to more lenient grading, the assessment tool ensured training and assessment integrity.

Characteristics of Forces at the Clinician–Patient and Patient–Table Interfaces During Thoracic Spinal Manipulation in Asymptomatic Adults Are Consistent With Deformable Body Models

Investigating all forces exerted on the patient’s body during high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) remains fundamental to elucidate how these may contribute to SMT’s effects. Previous conflicting findings preclude our understanding of the relationship between SMT forces acting at the clinician–patient and patient–table interfaces. This study aimed to quantify forces at the clinician–participant and participant–table interfaces during thoracic SMT in asymptnomatic adults. An experienced clinician provided a posterior to anterior SMT centered to T7 transverse processes using predetermined force–time characteristics to 40 asymptomatic volunteers (20 females; average age = 27.2 [4.9] y). Forces at the clinician–participant interface were recorded by triaxial load cells; whereas, forces at the participant–table interface were recorded by the force-sensing table technology. Preload force, total peak force, time to peak, and loading rate at each interface were analyzed descriptively. Total peak vertical forces at the clinician–participant interface averaged 532 (71) N while total peak forces at the participant–table interface averaged 658 (33) N. Forces at the participant–table interface were, on average, 1.27 (0.25) times larger than the ones at the clinician–participant interface. Larger forces at the participant–table interface compared with the ones at the clinician–participant interface during thoracic SMT are consistent with mathematical models developed to investigate thoracic impact simulating a dynamic force-deflection response.